Re: ANN: Retiring from A2 world - Good Bye All!

[Jalapeno <jalapeno1@mac.com>]

[Please don't top post, it interupts the dialog]
In article <3d0b2a2b_1@news3.prserv.net>,
 "Tom Zuchowski" <tzuchow@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Uh, you seem to be disregarding the fact that the Apple II+ was the original
> "business machine" and was very, very successful in that role. 

Really, show me some figures on that, please. During that time my 
partners and I had a technology consulting firm that reviewed and 
negotiated contracts, mapped out techonology strategies, built data 
centers from the ground up, and consulted in hardware upgrades for many 
large corporations and businesses. The vast majority of our business 
dealt with mainframes and mid/mini computers but we always looked at all 
technologies. Our job was to implement the right tools and strategies 
for our clients. From 1979 to 1984 (when the Mac was released) we placed 
exactly one Apple II+ into a business (a field office in San Mateo, 
California, for a Korean based chip manufacturer). That was because 
visi-calc was the right solution for their need, at the time. I saw no 
other Apple II's of any kind at any client (or potential client, for 
that matter) during that period.

I can tell you that in the San Francicso bay area during that period 
there were more DEC PDP/8's and PDP/11's in use than all the Apple II+'s 
in businesses in all of northern California. Schools were the bread and 
butter of Apple. If their survival depended on sales to businesses they 
would have went under early.

>                                                            ...Apple created
> the Apple /// as their successor business machine, and it failed because of
> some VERY stupid cost-cutting decisions made in its manufacture that
> poisoned pubic opinion.
> 

I was addressing Stan Marks' statement regarding the IIgs and the Mac. 
The Apple /// sold a total of what, 150,000 units worldwide? It was a 
never considered as a business machine in the business climate I worked 
in, back then, either.

> Meanwhile, the Mac was largely a toy for years until the SE30 finally hit
> the streets. Even then, it was a poor excuse for a "business machine" and no
> competition for the PC. And let's not forget that IBM was well on its way to
> market dominance by the time the first pitiful Mac128 hit the street.
> 

Well, you appear to have some kind of passion about the topic. I was in 
business then. In business you need to be as objective as you can. Apple 
conceived of the Mac as a business machine. It stated so in it's 
literature of the time. It was marketed for business. It was a complete 
failure. From 1979 to mid 1980 most (actually all) business managers I 
dealt with said they'd look at a micro-computer solution if IBM came out 
with one. When IBM announced the PC in 1980 we were asked by our clients 
to investigate PC solutions for most of the first half of 1981. When we 
talked with IBM field engineers they used to laugh. It was my impression 
at the time even people in IBM thought the "PC" was a fad that would be 
short-lived. IBM dumped a whole lot of money into advertising though, so 
someone there took it seriously. 

> It wasn't that Apple was unable to penetrate the business market. Rather, it
> was Apple's breathtaking arrogance (and yes, the Mac figures prominently in
> that equation) that let the business market get away from them after they
> had once pretty much owned it. The Apple /// was a vastly superior machine
> in every way to the early PC.
> 

Arrogance may affect the home user but in business the bottom line is 
what matters. Superior technology means squat if it doesn't help a 
business make more money. I did business for years with people whom I 
couldn't stand. What did I care that they made me puke. They paid our 
firm $50,000 a year to tell them which computers to buy.

Apple couldn't penetrate the business market. We did a lot of research 
in 1984 and 1985 on placing Mac's into businesses. Secretaries and 
accountants loved the small footprint of the Mac. None of them wanted 
them because there were no cursor keys to move around. They found the 
mouse way too cumbersome. When a secretary tells her boss that she 
doesn't like the mouse and then he looks at the price tag, he isn't 
going to buy it. Period. It was a mistake for apple to force a paradigm 
shift instead of trying to ease it in. That was my experience. Perhaps 
yours was different.

> As for the Apple IIgs, more than 90% of the GS's in schools were used as
> ProDOS machines, as "fast IIe's." That would in part explain why the IIe
> outlived the GS in Apple's education-only catalog.
> 

Yes I am aware of that. Apple's business plans intended for the IIgs to 
be a transition. Customers sometimes double-cross the manufacturer. 

Regards,
Chippy


> Tom Zuchowski
> 
> "chippy" <apnemh@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
> apnemh-51BAA5.11141814062002@nnrp01.earthlink.net">news:apnemh-51BAA5.11141814062002@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
> > In article <1fdr9qs.mshviub5c020N%swmarks@telepak.net>,
> >  swmarks@telepak.net (Stan Marks) wrote:
> >
> > > It has always been my impression that the IIgs was offered up to Apple
> > > II users as a "peace offering", of sorts, for not having made the
> > > Macintosh compatible with the Apple II platform. Unfortunately, for
> > > Apple (and us?), it was too little too late.
> >
> > Well, I think your impression is just a pregnent chad :) The majority of
> > the market for the Apple II, and I have seen figures as high as 80% of
> > the market, was schools. A million hobby users would still be just a
> > small percentage of the overall Apple II sales (and I doubt there were
> > ever a million hobby users). The Macintosh was conceived as a business
> > machine that was intended to replace the IBM PC in offices, not replace
> > the Apple II (which was in schools). When Apple was unable to penetrate
> > the business scene (and as a consultant during those times, I can tell
> > you that the lack of cursor keys kept more Mac's off of secretaries and
> > accountants desks than anything else about the Mac) Apple tried to push
> > Macintoshes into it's base, the schools.
> >
> > The IIgs was intended to be a migration path to the Macintosh for
> > schools, since it allowed them to keep their significant investment in
> > software while introducing the interface and functionality of the Mac.
> > Major 3rd party developers began to curtail Apple II development by 1987
> > and by 1989 only had a token presence as most of the significant IIgs
> > software developed after 1989 was from small or medium sized publishers.
> > The three big fish (in my opinion) in that small pond being The Byte
> > Works, Vitesse and Seven Hills Software.
> >
> > That doesn't discount the fact that some businesses bought IIgs' and
> > many, many hobbiests did too. However, by 1986 Sculley had already
> > decided that the Apple II line was history and the direction Apple chose
> > was to attempt to migrate the schools via the IIgs. Apple's own
> > engineers may have had other ideas but Apple's business plan was set,
> > even in 1986.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chippy
> 
>